I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE

[damatotomato]

This wasn't at all bad!

Concerned that it was introduced as being cut but 'not by much' - where is the outrage? Concerned Emilly Booth (who I like a lot) introduced this by saying the Horror Channel show the original without pointing out that they show the incredibly cut version..maybe it's just me. Maybe I care too much. Why has everything gone so pro-establishment? You know, I was so cross with Alan Jones at last year's Frighfest mocking Dario Argento's Giallo, and then, just before we get to the main movie, we get a Horror Channel advert for a season of Argento movies introduced by Jones, with him saying 'Argento is an auteur' and I just think - no, the definition of an auteur is someone who creates his own way, with individualistic style, whether it makes sense to us or not. Giallo made sense to me. If you really believed Argento was an auteur you would also have to love Giallo, Mother of Tears and every film the man makes. An auteur is to be followed and appreciated, whatever the direction the creativity has taken. Anyway, enough of that, but the advert did irk me a bit... but this isn't about personalties. It's about a remake of one of the most famous and feared horror movies of all time!! So on -

The film - not bad, not really very shocking, the rape and threat was all very smooth and unconvincing, very Hollywood. I don't know what the BBFC chose to cut, but if it was anything like we had on screen - I can't believe it would really corrupt even Bagpuss. Was the content they cut really more shocking than Salo, Irreversible, Last House On The Left, Caligula, Hostel (films uncut by the BBFC)? No, I don't think so. I think that with a new government the BBFC have been given new rules and it's like 1983 all over again - this will be laughed about in 20 years time. Documentaries will be made. Snip snip snip.

Anyway, on to the film.

The lead actress - Sarah Butler - who? - was pretty enough. Not that convincing. Ok though. Nice hair. And - in the credits - we find out she has a body double. Ha - lol! See - I am getting old. Imagine Camille Keaton with a body double....(please don't someone now tell me she did have one!!)

In the original, the rape was upsetting. Not here. In the original the violence follows on from the abuse. It was convincing. It was conveyed as justified. Here the gap between attack and violence was extended too far and was just jarring for me. It also involved the wife and daughter of the main bad guy. In the remake it's a mistake. Something happens to a family member we assume, that probably doesn't justify retribution; it makes the woman a monster here, the way she lingers on what she may have done - she is now a villain, we aren't on her side, it doesn't work. I think mainly because the acting isn't great. Bad mistake. You begin to realise how great Keaton's performance (to a script based on an upsetting true story) was.

The violence was shocking at times, but relatively restrained. The most famous moment - the snip - was entirely off camera. Hey, same with the original, but funnily enough - you really notice it here. It's clankily edited. It's all too - obviously a movie. Just a movie. You don't have to keep repeating this to yourself over and over. It's obvious! The shotgun bit too - a bit, well, yucky to think of, but very short on gore for the main kill. Bit of a dumb idea that bit about him being an 'arse man' - it was forced. In all senses of the word! The movie was entirely short on the money shot. But the ideas were icky enough. That bird bit was pretty original.

I sort of thought it was good, a bit later and I think it's ok. It's one of the better remakes. But really, Camille Keaton's astonishing performance in the uncut original is the one you need to see. I don't think the original nasties can be copied. Because the originals weren't made with a sense of knowing - a nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Remakes essentially are recycled moviemaking. They can never be a favourite movie of yours - because they are copies, maybe glossier, but never like the taste of the real thing.

I can't say I hated this film. I just sort of felt a bit 'blah' about it all. Still, it scared the row of ladies in front of me, and that can't be a bad thing for any horror movie to do!

Damatotomato gives this film 3 balls of blood out of 5 - 000

[brad1000]

me and my friends were appalled at the lack of respect for argentos work at the showing of giallo ...the infantile guffawing ruined the film for us

[sherbetbizarre]

You know, I was so cross with Alan Jones at last year's Frighfest mocking Dario Argento's Giallo, and then, just before we get to the main movie, we get a Horror Channel advert for a season of Argento movies introduced by Jones, with him saying 'Argento is an auteur'

You really didn't know Alan's history with Argento? He's been on every Argento film-set from Opera to the Card Player (maybe even DYL Hitchcock?) and written at least two books on him, and they are good friends.

It was well known before the FrightFest showing what Alan's feelings were on Giallo - either here or at darkdreams - and it's a film even Argento himself has distanced himself from.

He was "mocking" Giallo because the end product was beyond stupid.

and I just think - no, the definition of an auteur is someone who creates his own way, with individualistic style, whether it makes sense to us or not. Giallo made sense to me. If you really believed Argento was an auteur you would also have to love Giallo, Mother of Tears and every film the man makes. An auteur is to be followed and appreciated, whatever the direction the creativity has taken.

Really?

[damatotomato]

You know, I was so cross with Alan Jones at last year's Frighfest mocking Dario Argento's Giallo, and then, just before we get to the main movie, we get a Horror Channel advert for a season of Argento movies introduced by Jones, with him saying 'Argento is an auteur'

You really didn't know Alan's history with Argento? He's been on every Argento film-set from Opera to the Card Player (maybe even DYL Hitchcock?) and written at least two books on him, and they are good friends.

It was well known before the FrightFest showing what Alan's feelings were on Giallo - either here or at darkdreams - and it's a film even Argento himself has distanced himself from.

He was "mocking" Giallo because the end product was beyond stupid.

and I just think - no, the definition of an auteur is someone who creates his own way, with individualistic style, whether it makes sense to us or not. Giallo made sense to me. If you really believed Argento was an auteur you would also have to love Giallo, Mother of Tears and every film the man makes. An auteur is to be followed and appreciated, whatever the direction the creativity has taken.

Really?

Yes I do know his 'history' with Argento, and the books he wrote, I remember when they first came out and I used to read 'em in Forbidden Planet in its old location. Doesn't mean I agreed with his comments about Giallo though (and negative comments about other Argento movies too). I don't agree the end product was 'beyond stupid'. I'm not saying why again here - check out my Giallo@Frightfest review on imdb. I think that says it all! I thought it was a lack of respect - my opinion. I'm not being that arrogant about it, it is a personal opinion I have, and means, yep - nothing to you, or Alan, and neither should it. I like him as a reviewer and as a Frighfest organiser, as a person too from what I have seen, but I thought his Giallo introduction will go down as an all-time cruel Argento snub that some Argento fans weren't happy about - all that stuff about 'joining AA; Argento Anonymous', to me seemed crass. That's not to say he doesn't know his stuff. But a bit ironic that someone who can say something so cruel about the greatest horror director in the world, also gets to introduce an Argento season on Horror Channel? Well. That's my opinion. I'm not being mean-spirited. I'm an Argento fan with an opinion. I don't have to say the right thing just because it sounds the nicer option. I just feel a slight irony (for me anyway) when I see him in close-up praising Argento, but not being shown being negative about Argento, that is swept under the carpet, predictably - if they screen Giallo, will they show Alan's true thoughts on this movie and a clip of the Frightfest intro, methinks not!...anyway, it's old news now, tomorrow is a new day, and hopefully a new Argento movie too!

imdb link: [ FRIGHTFEST London 2009 - REVIEW - "a fabulous kick in the teeth to convention" ]
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1107816/usercomments

dt

[rawshark]

Can't see how Giallo can be considered in Argento's Auteur oeuvre when he didn't write the script for the film...

But anyway, back to topic please;

ISOYG redux was very solid in my opinion. Well-made, not overly Hollywood glossy, and some particularly gruesome revenge deaths. I have a thing about eyes in films (took me ages to draw up the courage to watch Zombie Flesh Eaters splinter sequence without turning away), so the guy with the fishhooks for me was particularly unsettling.

Agree it's difficult to justifiably remake such a sleazy exploitation classic, but I thought the filmmakers did a good job. Good to see Welsh actor Andrew (Blood River, Isle of Dogs) Howard in a solid role too...

[jonbly]

Current winner of this year's "too slow to get going" award. Seriously, if she runs round that lake one more time jonbly's gonna kill her himself. Flapping shed doors don't help. On and on and on. Just like this paragraph. (Or the opening post here... seriously dude, tldr).

The other main problem was that Johnny and the sherrif end up suffering less than the other two, despite the fact that they're the key offenders... surely she'd save the best for the sherrif? Guess they just decided that the audience would be getting bored by then...

6/10

[damatotomato]

Can't see how Giallo can be considered in Argento's Auteur oeuvre when he didn't write the script for the film...

But anyway, back to topic please;

ISOYG redux was very solid in my opinion. Well-made, not overly Hollywood glossy, and some particularly gruesome revenge deaths. I have a thing about eyes in films (took me ages to draw up the courage to watch Zombie Flesh Eaters splinter sequence without turning away), so the guy with the fishhooks for me was particularly unsettling.

Agree it's difficult to justifiably remake such a sleazy exploitation classic, but I thought the filmmakers did a good job. Good to see Welsh actor Andrew (Blood River, Isle of Dogs) Howard in a solid role too...

*SPOILERS*
Yeah, the eyeball bit was very convincing indeed - the guy really looked in pain. I was actually quite concerned for the actor. Especially when the birds started hopping towards his eyes! How did they do that? It reminded me of the great Fulci too. The sudden edit away from the eye popping worked very well. More films should try this technique. It actually made the scene more shocking. This scene was fresh and original - credit due here!

The location filming was quite lovely at times - another credit!

I don't think I was so conviced by the sheriff's reaction to the man who kept the dodgy tape - shove it in his gob. Ooooh - you meanypants! I was expecting more from the psycho ass man:)) I mean, he didn't even look that cross!!

Still, not a bad movie, like I said. Not as ferocious as the original. Cannot understnd BBFC cuts - the film is tamer than films like Hostel and Saw and those kind. Certainly no worse. I believe they cut out some nudity. Actually I think this glorified the rape more. The nudity in the original made the rape more shocking and horrible. Here, the lead character keeps her clothes on most of the time, and when not, we get just a bit of a flash - a body double flash! It Hollywood-ises the scene; stylises it. It's not as raw as the filmmakers maybe wanted. The BBFC glorifies rape as it lessens the reality that clothes come off and the victim is naked and vulnerable, and rape, even watched as simulation, is not a turn-on. Rape in a TV movie where the victim keeps wearing trousers I think is more dangerous than the realism of the original ISOYG. Why did the BBFC cut out some nudity in the rape scene? (I don't look for this by the way - I just think it negates the impact and leaves the rape implied and less shocking, also negating the revenge aspect). It makes the visualisation of the rape a bit more safe. It seems a misguided decision. An old-skool BBFC decision, the old enemy of genre fans returns! But I don't know for sure, I haven't seen the cut scenes, I'm making an assumption! Still, it's a strong movie even slightly cut for Horror channel to be showing on the small screen. They are showing it aren't they? - I think that was what we were being told. Don't cut it even more though.

Anyway, a good film to show Saturday night at Frightfest. Not as worthy as Monsters, but a horror film. Should have been on in the 9pm slot.

dt

[damatotomato]

The other main problem was that Johnny and the sherrif end up suffering less than the other two, despite the fact that they're the key offenders... surely she'd save the best for the sherrif?

*SPOILERS GALORE*
I don't know, I think if I chose a way to go, I'd rather be tied up naked by a pretty girl and have my bits chopped off (bit of a downer though - no offers please!) then have a shotgun rammed up and down my bottom and then shot up the aforementioned area. It's a man thing! It was tit for tat this revenge scene. Or ass for ass. It was the only way the Sheriff could go. And I think he was smiling right there at the end ...

dt

[looneygooner]

The original was a classic, the remake would have been better if it had been renamed and distanced from the original, don't get me wrong it was entertaining and the revenge very good, but in my opinion it has nothing on the original, I just wish people would leave the classics alone, I have yet to see one remake that did the original any justice and it feels a little lazy and exploitative when directors do this.

[Dom]

I think I need to see the original again, it's been a couple of years since I saw it and to be honest made no impact on me. That's not to say I don't acknowledge it's history but I'm more of a Last House On The Left guy. Anyway, I thought this was really good, strong performances by all, any kind of rape scene is harsh and the revenge act was proper cheering her on stuff.

Rope, lye, fish, sausage, arse.

[djwoody]

Great Holywood remake of a "classic" video nasty. Was nasty in all the right places. Top film.

[Grindhouse]

Excellent remake very uncomfortable viewing and a great pay off for revenge.
its going to be hard to see this in multiplexes as the 1st hour is just so hard going,but its a roller coaster and once its past that point its down hill with a rush all the way,but still very uncomfortable and i wonder just how it will play at cinemas,will people walk or run out of the screens?

[Spencer]

it's just me then that didn't buy it?

The performances were not great (the guy that played the retarded kid was very poor - watch his performance next to tony kebbel in dead mans shoes)
I didn'y buy the fact that they all took orders from the cop, the cop was introduced to late into the gang dynamic for me to beleive that this litle bald man was the leader.
I know people are saying that as she leaves the woods all twitchy and stuff is one of the stick with you moments of the festival , but again I didn't buy it , her twitchy moves were far to comedic (especially her left arm) and to be honest she was not a good enough actress to carry the film.
I also didn't buy that she was supposed to have been living out in the woods for a spell and yet when she turns up for the revenge her hair was perfect and she was in her clothes from the first segment of the film also if they wanted to not use the seduction technique from the original then surely it would have been better to have completely feral and animalistic
....also no-one missed her - her family etc? No one called the cops??? the city cops.
Yeah you could argue the kills were post saw crowd pleasers but I didn't get any sense from her during the second half that they had pushed her to the edge and the biggest problem i had with her in the second half were the off the cuff remarks she kept making during the revenge (saying to the sherrif 'i thought you were an ass man) come on.... you all talk about how gritty the film is but yet here is a girl that has been humiliated, beaten and raped by five men and she turns up completely together , cracking jokes?


also those CGI crows were pretty terrible.

A really pointless remake.

I really wanted to like this. but as you can tell I didn't.

[Heiko]

Okay, it's been 100 years since I've seen the original, I always feel tempted to buy the DVD but never really get my arse in gear and do so...

so maybe the 'newness' of it helped me enjoying the remake,

but somehow it all clicked for me in that movie: sexy heroine who only gets more stunning after her ordeal, creative ways of revenge, the violence makes sense i.e. it's not 'torture sells that's why we show it'.

So yes, 2 thumbs up for that one.

[The Aylmer]

I loved this. It was one of this years better offerings in my opinion. Predictable in some ways, the most obvious being the rape sequence not going on for as long as the original (its a glossy Hollywood remake so inevitably it's going to try to be less offensive than a grindhouse independant). Which is fine by me in this instance as I was never that impressed by the lengthy rape in the original anyway. Watched it just the once on pirate video in the early 80's and the more the rape dragged on the less shocking it became and the more bored I got. So when I heard they'd cut the multiple rapes in the remake (17 cuts in the sex scenes totalling 43 seconds with substituted shots bringing it down to 21 seconds) then, for once, I didn't feel the red mist come down as usually happens, but just thought "hopefully it'll be more effective because of those cuts". Of course, I can't say for certain as I've not seen what they cut out. But in this instance I found the 18 rated version certainly delivered the goods regardless. The acting was better here as well. The backward kid in the original for example was bloody awful. A comedy retard if you like. In the remake I really felt quite sorry for him when he got his come uppance. I much preferred this to the 1980's version.